Gun Control Compromise

[iceberg]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Moron....our gun crime rate went down 49% since 1993 as Pew reports.....it went up a little in 2015 because of the Ferguson Effect and obama and his Justice Department attacking the police.......it is now going back down again...

It doesn't matter. If he was really serious about getting his gun control in place, he would be pushing for a constitutional amendment.

He is not. It is just hot air.

Wow, siding with a fruitcake. I thought better of you. Actually, we have done something about it. We demanded common sense gun regs and got them. Then we started working with out cops and neighborhoods. Get the bad actors out of both. Mostly, when I see something like that, the civilian is going to keep pushing to get that confrontation even if it means their death. The Community needs to put an end to that. Social Programs done the right way are a good thing and do take care of these problems.

We need common sense gun regs, teach them, and then enforce them. And enforce the related laws as well. If it's a bad citizen, get them off the street. If it's a bad cop, get him off the street. Simple as that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wow, siding with a fruitcake. I thought better of you. Actually, we have done something about it. We demanded common sense gun regs and got them. Then we started working with out cops and neighborhoods. Get the bad actors out of both. Mostly, when I see something like that, the civilian is going to keep pushing to get that confrontation even if it means their death. The Community needs to put an end to that. Social Programs done the right way are a good thing and do take care of these problems.

We need common sense gun regs, teach them, and then enforce them. And enforce the related laws as well. If it's a bad citizen, get them off the street. If it's a bad cop, get him off the street. Simple as that.

It was more about the person he was responding to.

 

[Dale Smith]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

Total bullshit and you know it. The end game is that of total gun confiscation. By "registering" anything you own is transferring ownership to the state and you are allowed "mere user" permission until they deem you can't.
What is REGISTER?
rights which a king has by virtue of his prerogative. Hence owners of counties palatine were formerly said to have “jura regalia” in their counties as fully as the king in his palace. 1 Bl. Comm. 117. The term is sometimes used in the same sense In the Spanish law. See Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 506. Some writers divide the royal prerogative into majora and minora regalia, the former including the regal dignity and power, the latter the revenue or fiscal prerogatives of the crown. 1 Bl. Comm. 117.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow, siding with a fruitcake. I thought better of you. Actually, we have done something about it. We demanded common sense gun regs and got them. Then we started working with out cops and neighborhoods. Get the bad actors out of both. Mostly, when I see something like that, the civilian is going to keep pushing to get that confrontation even if it means their death. The Community needs to put an end to that. Social Programs done the right way are a good thing and do take care of these problems.

We need common sense gun regs, teach them, and then enforce them. And enforce the related laws as well. If it's a bad citizen, get them off the street. If it's a bad cop, get him off the street. Simple as that.

It was more about the person he was responding to.

I wished that were the case and I wish he would do it like a civilized person. When you start off every post with "You are a Moron" you have to expect someone to take umbrage sooner or later. You and I have found we are actually closer in ideals than either of us used to think. We have common ground. But if either of us starts conversation with"You are a moron" them meaningful communication just came to a screeching halt. Praise the Lord and pass the Powder.

If you want to encourage his behavior fine, but do it without me. I know that he is one the reasons why the "Other Side" allows their own fruitcakes to sneak in some pretty ridiculous laws and ideas. Common sense goes out the window. I, for one, will call on him on that every time. Especially when he says things that are patently an open lie.

His lie isn't any different than the nutcase that says that we need to confiscate all guns from the citizens because it will do away with gun crime. In reality, neither one will change a thing in the long run. But in the short run, both will cause more trouble than they are worth. Or we can leave the guns alone and do the programs that actually do affect things in the long run that do not involved guns or the lack thereof.

 

[Rigby5]

Moron....our gun crime rate went down 49% since 1993 as Pew reports.....it went up a little in 2015 because of the Ferguson Effect and obama and his Justice Department attacking the police.......it is now going back down again...

It doesn't matter. If he was really serious about getting his gun control in place, he would be pushing for a constitutional amendment.

He is not. It is just hot air.

Wow, siding with a fruitcake. I thought better of you. Actually, we have done something about it. We demanded common sense gun regs and got them. Then we started working with out cops and neighborhoods. Get the bad actors out of both. Mostly, when I see something like that, the civilian is going to keep pushing to get that confrontation even if it means their death. The Community needs to put an end to that. Social Programs done the right way are a good thing and do take care of these problems.

We need common sense gun regs, teach them, and then enforce them. And enforce the related laws as well. If it's a bad citizen, get them off the street. If it's a bad cop, get him off the street. Simple as that.

Seems like you are contradicting yourself?
First you say we need common sense gun regs, but clearly gun regs can't possibly do anything good or work, because those with criminal intent will ignore them.
You can't enforce them without giving government draconian powers that destroys the whole country and turns it into a dictatorship.

I basically agree that instead, the point should be to control the bad citizens, whether police or not.
But the reality is that is you get rid of poverty, injustice, lack of opportunity, lack of education, lack of healthcare, etc., then the bad citizens go away naturally.
And if you pay cops to enforce laws the constitution does not authorize, like the war on drugs, then the police will always be the bad guys and the problem.
Again, I would stress that jails are not really a solution, and just create more problems, like bad police.

 

[Rigby5]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

 

[iceberg]

whats this bizarre thing where when liberals dont understand something, they demonize it then ban it?

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Just amend and you can pass all the "common sense" gun laws you want.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

i have zero idea what i'm trying to make you FEAR, other than your own ignorance.

frankly, it scares me.

you are incapable of having a conversation with the points i make so you seem to be providing them for me and arguing with yourself in the end.

have fun.

 

[Rigby5]

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

 

[iceberg]

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

one question i keep asking no one can answer really is - which of the proposed bans or laws would have changed or stopped any of the mass shootings in the last decade?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not sure what you mean by not understanding it. I understand guns just fine. My MOS in the Army was repairing guns. ("this is my rifle, this is my gun... " Oh, never mind, I was having a flashback)

What I do understand is that these weapons are deadly and you don't give them to people like Adam Lanza or Nick Cruz or James "Joker" Holmes...because 250 years ago, some Slave Rapist couldn't word a militia amendment clearly.

Or we can pass them and litigate until the NRA is bankrupt...

Investigating the NRA leadership for corruption and collusion with Russia, also a good idea.

My own opinion, every time LaPeirre or Ollie North gets on the Air spewing NRA filth and lies, we split screen it with crime scene photos of a mass shooting.

i was speaking in generic terms with "liberals" - not to you. i don't know your background so i couldn't say what YOUR gun knowledge is.

i CAN say that many liberals are out there trying to pass gun legislation and like the Colorado Rep who wanted to ban >10 round mags and thought they were disposable. She needs to sit the fuck down and stop trying to pass laws around guns and gun control. as far as i'm concerned, if you can't pass a gun literacy test, you can't pass laws to govern them.

i CAN say the press over-states things and tries to scare people away from guns and out of ignorance or planning, just lies about them. CNN had a pulsing grenade launcher on an AR15 and it looked far more sexual than deadly.

i CAN say the vast majority of liberals i talk to say WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS but then the AR15 is mean and scary looking, so we're coming for it. when asked what traits it has than a browning semi-automatic doesn't or can't have, they stumble and when they realize AR's are NOT fully automatic (finally) but semi, they now what to ban SEMI automatic guns, of which is a shitload of guns that look nothing like the AR.

THEN they want to ban any seme with > 10 round detachable mags. way to go guys, you just banned the entry level 22.

i CAN say that many reporters will mischaracterize the AR intentionally and just flat out lie because they're anti-gun agenda demands they do it for "the greater good" OF WHICH is NOT their sole call to make, now is it? remember the reporter who said he got sick from firing the AR15 and the recoil bruised his shoulder? you fix guns, you know he's full of shit. did you call him on that (if you saw the story) or would you back him up cause you're anti-gun and share that bond?

and when they can't define the AR to a set of rules that doesn't also apply to other guns, they then go for the other guns also and simply don't care who's rights they trample along the way.

so i'll stand by my "many liberals are idiots" about guns and not sweat it cause of the above. it's a true statement.

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

i have zero idea what i'm trying to make you FEAR, other than your own ignorance.

frankly, it scares me.

you are incapable of having a conversation with the points i make so you seem to be providing them for me and arguing with yourself in the end.

have fun.

Works for me, cupcake.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

1. The Law passed in Colorado limiting detachable Mags to 15, not 10 and it stood up in Federal Court. I would have rather seen it limited to 20 but that's just me. You get your information because there were NO 15 round mags made at the time for the AR, only 10 rounds. And that was what the Gun Shops had to put on their ARs to sell them until they got the 15 rounders made. Legislators are not Rocket Scientists. Even if they were, Einstein wore slip on shoes because he didn't tie his shoes when they had laces. The laces trailed behind him.

As for banning the AR-15, the days of the generic banning of the generic description went by the way. It did draw in way too many other guns like the little Model 60 Marlin. Eventually, the courts corrected that. Now, any weapon that is to be banned or limited must be named by specific model number. The various local Governments CAN ban or limit the "AR-15 and it's various clones" as long as they are that specific in their law.

You are back to try and keep the scare and fear factor going. More and more people aren't buying into that anymore. We are going for common sense gun regs that do not take away the sport shooting experience nor jeopardizes the defense of ones home.

You are throwing a temper tantrum of "You can't tell me what to do". Actually, yes they can and they do.

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

More guns don't up to a point. But when they near the saturation level some real problems do raise it's ugly head. When the class of the revolver was released into the west where it was brought back from the Civil War and just everyone had to have one, towns in the west had severe problems. Until 1871, there was zero gun regulations in the western states. Before the saturation, none were needed. But as the guns reached a certain level it got very dangerous for innocents to even walk down the streets or go to the local News Gathering Spots (the saloons). The Western Gun Regulations were invented. The East already had them. Gun Regulations aren't anything new. Please hang your sword on the peg on entering the establishment goes back much further. No Spears at the Bar. Get drunk and start brandishing your sword and the Bartender will place a mini ball between your eyes.

I have been to countries where they were at the saturation level. Then they try and pass laws to take all the weapons. It's too late for that. The only way that they can take those weapons is to kill the person holding them. Most countries like that, before and after, are real cesspools. You would think that Mexico would be on that list. It's not. Traditionally, Mexicans don't own guns or any serious weapons of any kind. This is why so many decades could go past before a Revolution against a real Despot would happen. The story of the Latin Anger is just a wives tail. Most Mexicans outside of the major cities are very calm and demure except during a national holiday or a religious holiday then lookout, katie. If you could convince them that a revolution was needed, you had to provide them with the weapons and supplies. Otherwise, they would just endure. This also why the Cartels get so powerful so fast.

Can you have too few guns? Probably. Just like you can have too many. Somewhere there is a happy medium and I believe we are there right now.

 

[Rustic]

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

More guns don't up to a point. But when they near the saturation level some real problems do raise it's ugly head. When the class of the revolver was released into the west where it was brought back from the Civil War and just everyone had to have one, towns in the west had severe problems. Until 1871, there was zero gun regulations in the western states. Before the saturation, none were needed. But as the guns reached a certain level it got very dangerous for innocents to even walk down the streets or go to the local News Gathering Spots (the saloons). The Western Gun Regulations were invented. The East already had them. Gun Regulations aren't anything new. Please hang your sword on the peg on entering the establishment goes back much further. No Spears at the Bar. Get drunk and start brandishing your sword and the Bartender will place a mini ball between your eyes.

I have been to countries where they were at the saturation level. Then they try and pass laws to take all the weapons. It's too late for that. The only way that they can take those weapons is to kill the person holding them. Most countries like that, before and after, are real cesspools. You would think that Mexico would be on that list. It's not. Traditionally, Mexicans don't own guns or any serious weapons of any kind. This is why so many decades could go past before a Revolution against a real Despot would happen. The story of the Latin Anger is just a wives tail. Most Mexicans outside of the major cities are very calm and demure except during a national holiday or a religious holiday then lookout, katie. If you could convince them that a revolution was needed, you had to provide them with the weapons and supplies. Otherwise, they would just endure. This also why the Cartels get so powerful so fast.

Can you have too few guns? Probably. Just like you can have too many. Somewhere there is a happy medium and I believe we are there right now.

This country needs to be better armed.... buy more guns and ammo

 

[2aguy]

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

More guns don't up to a point. But when they near the saturation level some real problems do raise it's ugly head. When the class of the revolver was released into the west where it was brought back from the Civil War and just everyone had to have one, towns in the west had severe problems. Until 1871, there was zero gun regulations in the western states. Before the saturation, none were needed. But as the guns reached a certain level it got very dangerous for innocents to even walk down the streets or go to the local News Gathering Spots (the saloons). The Western Gun Regulations were invented. The East already had them. Gun Regulations aren't anything new. Please hang your sword on the peg on entering the establishment goes back much further. No Spears at the Bar. Get drunk and start brandishing your sword and the Bartender will place a mini ball between your eyes.

I have been to countries where they were at the saturation level. Then they try and pass laws to take all the weapons. It's too late for that. The only way that they can take those weapons is to kill the person holding them. Most countries like that, before and after, are real cesspools. You would think that Mexico would be on that list. It's not. Traditionally, Mexicans don't own guns or any serious weapons of any kind. This is why so many decades could go past before a Revolution against a real Despot would happen. The story of the Latin Anger is just a wives tail. Most Mexicans outside of the major cities are very calm and demure except during a national holiday or a religious holiday then lookout, katie. If you could convince them that a revolution was needed, you had to provide them with the weapons and supplies. Otherwise, they would just endure. This also why the Cartels get so powerful so fast.

Can you have too few guns? Probably. Just like you can have too many. Somewhere there is a happy medium and I believe we are there right now.

More guns don't up to a point. But when they near the saturation level some real problems do raise it's ugly head.


Except they haven't. Not in this country. Over the last 26 years as more people, not less, own and actually carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%...how is that a problem? Our gun crime rate went down 75%......that isn't a problem, that is a plus......and our violent crime rate went down 72%.......

So your point is not a valid point since there are more guns in this country and our crime rates are going down....

And you are wrong on the "western gun regulations as well." You made that up from your imagination...

The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

Second, the idea that “Gun control laws were ubiquitous” in the 19th century is the work of politically motivated historians who cobble together every minor local restriction they can find in an attempt to create the impression that gun control was the norm. If this were true, Kristof wouldn’t need to jump to 1879 to offer his first specific case.

Visitors to Wichita, Kan., had to check their revolvers at police headquarters. As for Dodge City, a symbol of the Wild West, a photo shows a sign on main street in 1879 warning: “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.”


This talking point has been trotted out for years because it’s the closest thing anyone can find to resemble gun control in the Old West — a picture. But we don’t even know how rigidly the law was enforced, for how long, or if ever. We certainly don’t know that the guns were dropped off at “police headquarters.”

Dodge City-type ordinances—and those of some other towns—typically applied to the areas north of the “deadline,” which was the railroad tracks and a kind of red-light district. By 1879, Dodge City had nearly 20 businesses licensed to sell liquor and many whorehouses teeming with intoxicated young men. It was reasonable that these businesses wouldn’t want armed men with revolvers packed into their establishments.

However, the men voluntarily abandoned their weapons in exchange for entertainment and drink—just as they do today when entering establishments that prohibit the carrying of firearms. Those weapons were handed back to them when they were done. Not in their wildest imaginations would they have entertained the notion of asking the government for permission—getting a license or undergoing a background check—to own a firearm.

In the rest of the city, as with almost every city in the West, guns were allowed, and people walked around with them freely and openly. They bought them freely and openly. Even children could buy them. A man could buy a Colt or Remington or Winchester, and he could buy as many as he liked without anyone taking notice.


The fact is that in the 19th century there were no statewide or territory-wide gun control laws for citizens, and certainly no federal laws.

Nor was there a single case challenging the idea of the individual right of gun ownership. Guns were romanticized in the literature and art, and the era’s greatest engineers designed and sold them. All the while, American leaders continued to praise the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny.

Those who praised this right, incidentally, include numerous post-Civil War civil rights activists, who offered particularly powerful arguments for the importance of the Second Amendment. Most gun-control regulations that did exist, after all, were used for subjugating blacks and Indians.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

one question i keep asking no one can answer really is - which of the proposed bans or laws would have changed or stopped any of the mass shootings in the last decade?

I can only speak for Colorado. In 2013 Laws were passed that limited accessories to the AR. It didn't ban the AR or even disrupt the sales. Nor did any of these laws require any action up front from the authorities since all of them were Grandfathered in. We had just went through 3 mass shootings in a Theater and 2 Schools. What they all had in common was mags of at least 30 rounds and a bunch of them. One had a 100 round mag. The new law limited the mags to 15. I would have done it at 20 but that's just a judgement call. If you already had anything over 15 rounds you kept them but you couldn't sell them or transfer them. It takes about 10 years for a Grandfathered Gun Control like that to have a lasting affect. But it will work.

Teachers were given permission to be armed as school if the Principal authorizes it. The State may have authorized it but the Teachers Organizations turned it down flat. Instead, they installed metal security doors, a couple or three armed security guards and a method to herd the students into a central area where the shooter has to go through numerous metal security doors and corridors.

Since then, right around here, we have had 3 serious school lockdowns happen. 2 were false alarms. But one wasn't. One 17 year old was headed towards a school front gate. He was wearing a rain coat on a sunny warm dry day. One of the neighbors saw him and called it in. Before he reached the front gate, the had surround him and had him on the pavement in restraints. What they found on him was an AR-15 and 3 spare 30 round Mags that his Father owned. The Students were in lockdown for the next 2 hours and perfectly safe. Since the kid was 17, he was a minor and probably one sick puppy. His name was never released and it was only reported once on a page 6 type reporting. The kid was going for the new record but the dude in Las Vegas may have set the bar to high for any regular nutcase to ever break. I know, since he never got the chance to go in and slaughter away you can't count those kids and teachers as lives saved. At least that has been the faulty argument anyway.

Since it's been now 5 plus years of the new laws, the AR has lost it's cult status. 5 years ago, the guns shops couldn't keep them on the shelves they were selling them so fast. Bit the last 5 years, the AR market saturated and it lost it's cult status. Today, there are more ARs on the shelves in a Gun Shop than anything else but the reason for that is, they are having trouble selling them. I can buy a brand new Bushmaster at a gun shop for 399. Why is it so cheap? They just aren't selling anymore. And when dealing with other guns like handguns, the sales have slowed way down as well. I can go into any Gun Shop with 400 bucks burning a hole in my pocket and in 15 minutes be walking out with a brand new name brand handgun. That market saturated as well. And remember, this is the redest area in the state. The only reason Colorado is not listed as a blue state instead of a purple state isn this 1/3 of the state that is solid red.

How many lives have been saved? I know of one school that did have many lives saved. And there is no telling how many other lives were same beyond that. But it's been done by common sense gun regs and common sense social training and awareness.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

More guns don't up to a point. But when they near the saturation level some real problems do raise it's ugly head. When the class of the revolver was released into the west where it was brought back from the Civil War and just everyone had to have one, towns in the west had severe problems. Until 1871, there was zero gun regulations in the western states. Before the saturation, none were needed. But as the guns reached a certain level it got very dangerous for innocents to even walk down the streets or go to the local News Gathering Spots (the saloons). The Western Gun Regulations were invented. The East already had them. Gun Regulations aren't anything new. Please hang your sword on the peg on entering the establishment goes back much further. No Spears at the Bar. Get drunk and start brandishing your sword and the Bartender will place a mini ball between your eyes.

I have been to countries where they were at the saturation level. Then they try and pass laws to take all the weapons. It's too late for that. The only way that they can take those weapons is to kill the person holding them. Most countries like that, before and after, are real cesspools. You would think that Mexico would be on that list. It's not. Traditionally, Mexicans don't own guns or any serious weapons of any kind. This is why so many decades could go past before a Revolution against a real Despot would happen. The story of the Latin Anger is just a wives tail. Most Mexicans outside of the major cities are very calm and demure except during a national holiday or a religious holiday then lookout, katie. If you could convince them that a revolution was needed, you had to provide them with the weapons and supplies. Otherwise, they would just endure. This also why the Cartels get so powerful so fast.

Can you have too few guns? Probably. Just like you can have too many. Somewhere there is a happy medium and I believe we are there right now.

This country needs to be better armed.... buy more guns and ammo

 

[2aguy]

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

one question i keep asking no one can answer really is - which of the proposed bans or laws would have changed or stopped any of the mass shootings in the last decade?

I can only speak for Colorado. In 2013 Laws were passed that limited accessories to the AR. It didn't ban the AR or even disrupt the sales. Nor did any of these laws require any action up front from the authorities since all of them were Grandfathered in. We had just went through 3 mass shootings in a Theater and 2 Schools. What they all had in common was mags of at least 30 rounds and a bunch of them. One had a 100 round mag. The new law limited the mags to 15. I would have done it at 20 but that's just a judgement call. If you already had anything over 15 rounds you kept them but you couldn't sell them or transfer them. It takes about 10 years for a Grandfathered Gun Control like that to have a lasting affect. But it will work.

Teachers were given permission to be armed as school if the Principal authorizes it. The State may have authorized it but the Teachers Organizations turned it down flat. Instead, they installed metal security doors, a couple or three armed security guards and a method to herd the students into a central area where the shooter has to go through numerous metal security doors and corridors.

Since then, right around here, we have had 3 serious school lockdowns happen. 2 were false alarms. But one wasn't. One 17 year old was headed towards a school front gate. He was wearing a rain coat on a sunny warm dry day. One of the neighbors saw him and called it in. Before he reached the front gate, the had surround him and had him on the pavement in restraints. What they found on him was an AR-15 and 3 spare 30 round Mags that his Father owned. The Students were in lockdown for the next 2 hours and perfectly safe. Since the kid was 17, he was a minor and probably one sick puppy. His name was never released and it was only reported once on a page 6 type reporting. The kid was going for the new record but the dude in Las Vegas may have set the bar to high for any regular nutcase to ever break. I know, since he never got the chance to go in and slaughter away you can't count those kids and teachers as lives saved. At least that has been the faulty argument anyway.

Since it's been now 5 plus years of the new laws, the AR has lost it's cult status. 5 years ago, the guns shops couldn't keep them on the shelves they were selling them so fast. Bit the last 5 years, the AR market saturated and it lost it's cult status. Today, there are more ARs on the shelves in a Gun Shop than anything else but the reason for that is, they are having trouble selling them. I can buy a brand new Bushmaster at a gun shop for 399. Why is it so cheap? They just aren't selling anymore. And when dealing with other guns like handguns, the sales have slowed way down as well. I can go into any Gun Shop with 400 bucks burning a hole in my pocket and in 15 minutes be walking out with a brand new name brand handgun. That market saturated as well. And remember, this is the redest area in the state. The only reason Colorado is not listed as a blue state instead of a purple state isn this 1/3 of the state that is solid red.

How many lives have been saved? I know of one school that did have many lives saved. And there is no telling how many other lives were same beyond that. But it's been done by common sense gun regs and common sense social training and awareness.

Magazines don't matter in a mass shooting.......the anti gunners simply used the deaths as an excuse to ban those magazines because they have an irrational fear of guns.....

 

[Rigby5]

not getting emotional at all. just because you read it that way in your head doesn't mean it translates to reality.

i'm also not talking of the law itself nor whatever may have gotten passed. you've also chosen to bypass my point and are trying to shove YOUR views in my head.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

that is what i am referring to. if you're this GUN IGNORANT then you should be passing gun laws, or even bringing the legislation forth.

as for banning guns by model #, great. have at it. but that doesn't change the point i was making in that you can't really name too many features that ONLY the AR has in order to ban them as ASSAULT WEAPONS, of which that very definition had to be "modernized" because the term never fit these guns until liberals couldn't ever call them by what they really are.

now - either pay attention and answer what is said or feel free to keep moving past my posts and arguing with someone who falls for that shit.

I bet she can't overhaul a cars engine either but Congress has to regulate the Auto Industry as well. Congress is supposed to have highly qualified advisors of all types at their disposal. Obviously this wasn't the case. But I remember trying to work with a Republican Representative on the Internet problem that had the same problem and he screwed the pooch on that one and so did Congress.

The generic banning has already been addressed. You are trying to use a scare and fear tactic on a really, really dead horse. And they do ban and limit the AR-15 specifically in such a way that it doesn't affect similar sporting rifles. And the term Assault Rifles really only applies to those rifles with exactly the same features as the AR-15 but doesn't take in the more traditional semi-auto hunting rifles. Does buying an AR-10 or one of it's clones exempt it from the ban or limit? No, An AR-10 is essentially what brought us the AR-15. The only real difference today is that the AR-10 is chambered for the 7.62. In fact, there is a model of the AR-15 that is also chambered for the 7.62 and even the 22lr. Colt can't use the AR-10 name. That is owned by Armalite. I don't know if you are aware, Armalite also makes it's own AR clone. In reality, they make the original. The AR-15 is actually a clone of their gun. They make the M-15 which really started it all. But trust me, buy the LE6920 Colt, it's a better gun and a better deal being about 700 bucks cheaper. Actually, the AR-10 chambered for the .556 Nato was the one that started it all which is what the M-15 really is.

I read that you are still trying to use the fear factor because you are. It's been said over and over so many times that you believe it's the norm. It's not. And it's losing more meaning each day. You want decent laws, I suggest you get off this fear campaign and go help make them. I did and I got exactly what I wanted but it took a complete change in State Government to get it done.

And what is the advantage of any federal weapons law at all, or any limits in any weapon, including the semi auto AR-15 and full auto M-15?

It is essentially impossible to stop any determined person from killing someone if they are so motivated. Attempting to reduce one type of means of murder when there are so many, and only one bullet makes a person as dead as 30 do, accomplishes nothing but make a police state. The federal government is not authorized to make weapons laws, and instead is strictly prohibited from doing do.

Since 2013, we have had common sense gun regs and the murder rate from guns have gone down, not up. But that was only part of it. What we really stopped was the mass shootings and Colorado has had more than it's fair share. The everyday street shooting has been reduced due to social programs but the big stuff has been directly affect by those same common sense gun regs. No, you won't stop it but you can slow it down. And if that's all you do then should you do nothing and allow it continue to just get worse? Screw the common sense gun laws and social programs that reduce the murder rate. Get rid of all the laws and get more guns on the street. That way, the criminal can have more guns to steal and more people to murder. And since you have allowed the fruitcakes to purchase the 30 and 50 round mags for their AR, rejoice when the next mass shooting happens. It's called progress, right?

No one has ever shown any reason at all why or how gun regs can ever improve anything. Just like prohibition, they do not improve, but simply invalidate the credibility of government, which causes more distain for all laws. Look at drug laws or prohibition. Gun regs can only increase problems, and have no ability to decrease them at all.

But social programs do. I am on board with that.

More guns on the street have never shown to ever cause any sort of problem at all, ever.
In fact, the statistics are the more guns, the fewer crimes.
It puts defense back onto the responsibility of the individual, where it belongs.
What we should NOT want, is a paid mercenary police force to have to be relied upon for defense, because not only can they clearly NEVER actually defend anyone, but also are the single largest source of corruption in any society.

Tell me how you think having no gun laws would increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals?
I know it won't and can't.
That market is already totally saturated, and can't be increased.
Gun laws ONLY effect honest people, and NEVER criminals.

Large capacity magazines have never caused a mass murder.
If someone wanted to commit mass murder, they can easily use arson, and not even be there to get caught.
It takes minutes to make 2 small capacity mags into large capacity mags, and they can just use multiple mags or weapons instead.
Clearly magazine size is not and never has been an issue at all, except to hysterical propaganda.

Progress is when we stop making government a coercive force based on intimidation and threats.
Because any government that does that, needs to be destroyed.

one question i keep asking no one can answer really is - which of the proposed bans or laws would have changed or stopped any of the mass shootings in the last decade?

Exactly.
Not a single one of the existing or proposed law would ever have prevented a single one of the known incidents.
And actually would likely increase them, not only because the more coercive laws you make the government that enforces them becomes more corrupt, but individuals resent them and the government that imposes them even more.